1/10/2010

Amidst the brouhaha over Harry Reid’s comments, some people are defending Reid by saying that he told the truth, however . . . awkwardly. See, for example, Robert Stacy McCain, who declares: “Harry Reid is no more a racist than I am.” (Did Reid hit McCain’s tip jar?) And indeed, I fully support the principle that people need to be able to tell the truth, even if doing so might be perceived as politically incorrect.

But I’m not sure why Harry Reid, of all people, should benefit from that principle. He sure as hell hasn’t given others the benefit of the doubt when it comes to racial matters.

Washington, DC — The following is a statement by Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid on William Bennett’s recent comments:

Yesterday, on his radio call-in show, former Reagan Secretary of Education, William Bennett made the following comment, “… you could abort every black baby in this country and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down.”

“I am appalled by Mr. Bennett’s remarks and call on him to issue an immediate apology not only to African Americans but to the nation. At a time when so many Americans are struggling to recover from two devastating Hurricanes, now is the time to help one another, not feed the fires of racism. America can do better. The Republican Party has recently taken great pains to reach out to the African American community, and I hope that they will be swift in condemning Mr. Bennett’s comments as nothing short of callous and ignorant. They are reminiscent of a time our nation is still struggling to overcome.

Again, I call on him to issue an immediate apology to the nation for his insensitive remarks.”

One could attempt to defend Bennett on the same grounds that Stacy McCain uses to defend Reid: that Bennett was simply telling the truth, albeit in an “insensitive” way that was certain to inflame the crowd that makes a living profiting off racial grievances.

But Sen. Reid really didn’t care whether Bennett was telling the truth, did he? Sen. Reid saw an opportunity to make some political hay, and he took it.

Similarly, when a Republican sought to make English the national language, Reid called the attempt — you guessed it — racist:

The Senate voted on Thursday to designate English as the national language. . . . The amendment was proposed by Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma.

. . . .

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, said the Inhofe amendment was racist.

“Everybody who speaks with an accent knows that they need to learn English just as fast as they can,” he said.

Same goes for everyone who speaks with that “Negro dialect,” eh, Senator?

Feel free to declare Harry Reid a non-racist if you like. But some of us aren’t so sure. Recall, for example, Reid’s bizarre treatment of black Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

Recall that Reid once rushed to declare Justice Thomas to be “an embarrassment to the Supreme Court.” When pressed for specifics, Reid declared that one of Thomas’s opinions was similar to “an eighth-grade dissertation” — far inferior, Reid said, to the opinion of Justice Scalia in the same case. Except that Thomas’s short opinion was perfectly logical . . . and Scalia hadn’t even written an opinion in the case.

Law professor Eugene Volokh decried Reid’s comments about Thomas as “unfounded assertions of incompetence” backed up with “false statements” and “mischaracterizations.”

What was it about the black justice Thomas that Reid didn’t like? That made him inferior to the white justice who hadn’t even written an opinion in the case? Hmmm?

I think you’re starting to get the picture.

So decry the attacks on Reid as political correctness — if you think that’s what they are. Some of us don’t agree. Some of us happen to think that his declarations about the comings and goings of Obama’s “Negro dialect” are a little window into Harry’s soul.

And if we’re wrong, I won’t feel too bad. Reid is simply getting a taste of the medicine he has so eagerly dished out to others.

UPDATE: Thanks to Instapundit for the link. I hope new readers will bookmark my main page.

118 Responses to “Harry Reid’s History of Racial Posturing”

[…] can accuse me of hypocrisy.Update: (Smitty) What they can do, Stacy, is package a possible implied conflict of interest as a question. Ethics do matter. Had money exchanged hands to produce the penultimate sentence of the […]

Patterico,
For added cool points, a smiley is suggested as accompaniment to the sly question in the first para. Lack of such raises the question of your avariciousness, and I’d hate to see your reputation sullied, sir.
Cheers,
Chris

And, maybe, there will be some humor in all of this down the line. After the bets on the bamster come back as ‘loser’s bets,’ people will say “HE WAS JUST TOO LIGHT FOR THE JOB.”

Didn’t help he’s anamored of islam. Doesn’t help, either that the saud’s table went stone cold. We’re just ‘there.’ In places without payoff. And, nothing about the leadership seems “Augustan” at this point in time.

I think Reid was just articulating his own attitude toward black candidates, he wouldn’t have a problem voting for a Black candidate, as long as he is light skinned and doesn’t speak with a “Negro dialect”.

I think that is consistent with his criticism of Clarence Thomas, while Thomas obviously speaks very well, he grew up speaking a Negro dialect, and he is very obviously too black for Harry.

Is Reid a racist? Absolutely – but not the Bull Connors kind of racist that is the scarecrow/strawman of the current state of art for playing the politico-racial jiu jitsu we’ve been treated to as the defining narrative by those running the con game.

Reid’s comment was extremely illuminating in that it wasn’t a slam, but a nuanced appreciation for the political utility and ability of a candidate possessed of such innate characteristics – at once having the ‘bona fides’ to paint his opposition, either directly or by inference, with all the force of the cumulative racial bigotry baggage of a nation, while remaining ‘palatable’ to broader demographic subsets, and at the same time be able to employ subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) racially charging demagoguery for targetted audiences.

Reid’s comments are a classic example of liberal projection, combined with a cynical and machiavellian pragmatism rarely seen outside of political back room ruminations.

He wasn’t denigrating (if that term is still operative) Barak Obama – he was cynicaly displaying his disrespect for the country in general, while contemplating the utility of the hate and grievance theater for partisan political gain.

Some of us happen to think that his declarations about the comings and goings of Obama’s “Negro dialect” are a little window into Harry’s soul.

That window into the soul of someone like Reid is both fascinating and disturbing to me.

I first became aware of the odd dichotomy that afflicts a variety of liberals/Democrats when I read David McCullough’s biography on Harry Truman. Although Truman was the president that desegregated the military — and also was a big fan (way back in the 1940s, 1950s) of do-gooder ideas like implementing socialized national healthcare — he previously had written letters to his wife that were amazingly, appallingly vindictive towards and 100% (make that 1,000%) bigoted about non-whites, including blacks and Asians. Truman’s bile might have made even a Klu Klux Klanner blush.

Now several years later, I see further assessments of the idiosyncrases that people of the left are guilty of, particularly information like the following, and my cynicism about such people has been affirmed and increased:

Reason.com:

The people who give the least are the young, especially young liberals. [Public policy professor Arthur C.] Brooks writes that “young liberals — perhaps the most vocally dissatisfied political constituency in America today — are one of the least generous demographic groups out there…. In 2002, they were 12 percent less likely to give money to charities, and one-third less likely to give blood.”

Liberals, he says, give less than conservatives because of religion, attitudes about government, structure of families, and earned income…. He writes that young liberals are less likely to do nice things for their nearest and dearest, too. Compared with young conservatives, “a lower percentage said they would prefer to suffer than let a loved one suffer, that they are not happy unless the loved one is happy, or that they would sacrifice their own wishes for those they love.”

On the floor, Reid ripped GOP leaders who are trying to work on healthcare reform incrementally.

“You think you’ve heard these same excuses before? You’re right,” Reid said. “In this country there were those who dug in their heels and said, ‘Slow down, it’s too early. Let’s wait. Things aren’t bad enough’ — about slavery. When women wanted to vote, (they said) ‘Slow down, there will be a better day to do that — the day isn’t quite right … .'”

Reid finished his commentary by saying, “When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today.”

This would be the Democrat party, the party of the Black Codes and Jim Crow Laws? Yep some one. Looks to me like their is still a lot of hidden racism in their leadership …. Maybe we should see if Sen Byrd would like to comment?

The biggest phony in all of this is not just the guy at the center of the controversy — referring to Reid — but the guy on the receiving end of Reid’s comments (ie, Obama). A guy who embraced a race-obsessed fanatic like Jeremiah Wright for almost 20 years and, at the same time, had the nerve to chastise and publicly call for the firing of a silly radio personality named Don Imus. Imus being the guy whose shtick was to perform the role of “shock jock” (in at attempt to compete with the likes of loudmouth Howard Stern), and who in that persona of purposeful flippancy, outrageousness and humor, called some of the young women on a college basketball team “nappy-haired hos.”

Some of us happen to think that his declarations about the comings and goings of Obama’s “Negro dialect” are a little window into Harry’s soul.

It’s a bit troubling but worth noting that Harry Reid is a Mormon, old school. The church had an ugly double standard for blacks up until the late 70’s, when they finally decided to allow blacks to enter the ministry and to be allowed to receive the more meaningful keys to the kingdom which had always up until that point, been prohibited. Spiritual segregation and racism existed until apparently God changed His mind and thus the church changed their mind, too.

This indeed could be a little window into Harry’s soul and his worldview coming dangerously to the surface, hence the desperate backpedaling and justifications and panicked apology.

Yes, snarky comments that slyly call someone’s integrity into question usually can be classified as ‘jokes’. But that’s assuming the bantering is going on between friends. Those are the people you ‘joke’ with, right? The ones with whom you’ve established a basis of goodwill and who will automatically know you’re just kidding. Right? On the other hand, when said snarky comments are directed at those whose integrity one has already attacked, they are rightfully categorized as ‘insults’.

I rarely visit McCain’s site, and I know absolutely nothing about smitty except that he is a co-blogger there. Perhaps I should add that I also know very little about your squabble with him except from reading tangential references to it on other websites. But it’s my understanding that you called him a rascist. Is that correct? But then some said you didn’t call him a rascist. Instead, you said you couldn’t prove he’s a rascist, but you suggested he might be, so he needed to prove he wasn’t. Is that more correct? Or less? And how often do you beat your wife?

I’m (obviously) not a lawyer, Patterico. If I were, I’d probably not be so dense. You see, I personally think the original premise was very shaky. But it’s your continuous carping on it that’s becoming outrageous.

So now you bash him again. Smitty speaks up in his defense (as most of us would wish our associates would do for us in similar circumstances). And you verbally pat him on the head and tell him it was a ‘joke’, never acknowledging to anyone who doesn’t know the background that you have a personal vendetta goin’ on. Well, the LAT never acknowledges their conflicts of interest either. Guess it’s finally rubbed off…

I have a very hard time visualizing President Obama getting down and shucking and jiving. Say what you will about the man as president, but I just don’t think that part of the “Black experience” is familiar to him or comfortable for him.

Dingy Harry hasn’t said anything that we haven’t already known for a long time:

Garrett Morris: [ interrupting ] Well, I think I understand the problem with the tests. But the fact is that people have been saying that white people are smarter than black for hundreds of years. We’ve only had I.Q. tests for 20 or 30 years. How did the idea of white intellectual superiority originate?

Julian Bond: That’s an interesting point. My theory is that it’s based on the fact that light-skinned blacks are smarter than dark-skinned blacks.

If SML Reid is having trouble understanding Negro dialects, mabye Jive Lady can help him:

Randy: Can I get you something?Second Jive Dude: ‘S’mofo butter layin’ me to da’ BONE! Jackin’ me up… tight me!Randy: I’m sorry, I don’t understand.First Jive Dude: Cutty say ‘e can’t HANG!Jive Lady: Oh stewardess! I speak jive.Randy: Oh, good.Jive Lady: He said that he’s in great pain and he wants to know if you can help him.Randy: All right. Would you tell him to just relax and I’ll be back as soon as I can with some medicine?Jive Lady: Jus’ hang loose, blood. She gonna catch ya up on da’ rebound on da’ med side.Second Jive Dude: What it is, big mama? My mama no raise no dummies. I dug her rap!

Harry Reid is one of the few people who can blabber incoherent and inappropriate things neck and neck with Joe Biden. There is little trace of fairhandedness or reasonableness when it comes to the liberal mindset. Their views are correct, there is no external standard of truth to compare anything to. Now they have a growing list of people that are immune from the consequences of making foolish statements because no one expects anything better from them, yet they still get elected to office.

FWIW, he didn’t need to give Bill Bennett the benefit of a doubt on anything. “Bennett’s statement” was a reiteration of a point he read in the book “Freakonomics” (sp?) that he disagreed with. I heard him that morning, never thought a thing of it except that he was right to make the criticism. It wasn’t until some time later I heard the version of the story that made him out to be racist.

Sometimes it seems that the enhanced ability to communicate over the Web, etc., is mainly used to foster lies and cause trouble. I would second the nomination if Obama put forth our host for “Internet Czar”, it would be obne of the few good things he has done.

@patterico, #10
I like the way that “I was just kidding” hyperlink works.
While my earlier comment is there for the history books, please allow me to un-bunch the panties, as it were.
See, we can communicate.
Cheers, mate.
Chris

Harry Reid should be hounded for this to retirement. One of the rules for radicals is that you make the opposition live to the standards they espouse. Harry goes bananas over racial gaffes when in his favor: crucify him for his own.

Please Reid called ALL of us who DISAGREED with his “healthcare” CRAP akin to slavemasters. This guy is the biggest RACIST just as Bill Clinton is with his “getting our drinks” remarks. The Democrats have ALWAYS made EVERYTHING about race and when you do that then EVERYTHING is about race and in a haiku way Reid is the RACIST.

Harry Reid will pervert the truth to his favor or to hurt his critics in every situation. The thing is Harry contends he is a religious good man but he is a LIAR. He is a disgrace to the nation and all Christians. Remember when Rush referred to the phony soldiers who claimed to be ex military but weren’t and Harry spun that for all it was worth. Claiming Rush was degrading our military. What Rush said was true. But Reid can say “the war is lost” over and over. What waist of a Senator.

I don’t quite see the parallel here. Reid’s comment referred to the prevalent racism that undeniably exists in America; it was a comment about the electability of Obama. And I dont think anyone is shocked to hear that news; it is obvious that many more white Americans would have been uncomfortable with an African-American president who spoke in Ebonics. What pardons Reid for me is not that what he said was true, but that it wasn’t an insult directed at Obama, nor an ignorant slip-up that bore his inner racism; it was a comment about the ways in which many Americans are racist. That’s not offensive at all, it’s just politically savvy awareness of how the citizens of this country feel.

On the other hand, when William Bennett said that if “you wanted to reduce crime … you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down,” it was offensive because it alluded to the idea that murdering all black children was, in some sense, to him, logical. It was scary because his context for the quote had nothing to do with race; it was a discussion about abortion. Bennett’s comment didn’t refer to racism as a fact of American life, only as fact of his life.

Reid asked Bennett to apologize. We ask politicians to apologize in this way when they have revealed themselves to have ethically questionable ideas about race, not for openly discussing that race is a factor in many Americans’ judgments of each other. Bennett claimed to be misunderstood. But when Reid was asked to apologize (which I think is already a questionable demand), he did. To every American. So he did exactly as he would have told a Republican to do. I don’t see the hypocrisy.

Surely Reid will now be more hesitant to point the finger in the future, but I think he was right to do so at Bennett. I don’t see how the two comments are even on comparable levels of racial insensitivity, but regardless, since Reid apologized profusely, I don’t see how his asking others to do so signals his hypocrisy either.

On the other hand, when William Bennett said that if “you wanted to reduce crime … you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down,” it was offensive because it alluded to the idea that murdering all black children was, in some sense, to him, logical.

Then why did he call it a “an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do”?

sarah – Reid might have saved himself some grief if he had said Obama was a credit to his race or something similar, don’t you think? Instead he implied Americans, particularly Democrats and independents, those whose votes Obama would be seeking, were racist. Heckuva job Harry.

Actually what Reid said is [sadly] true. Everyone knew going into the election that Obama could not make race an issue. He had to rise above race. In short, he had to be a black person who most white folks trust and are not scared of. The fear of a black planet still lingers. You know it’s true. Remember some corners of the right wing world were talking about Michelle Obama making some remark in the past about ‘whitey’. And this fit right into the pattern that some Republicans wanted to project on Obama – that underneath he was a black panther of something. And so what Reid said essentially is what the Obama campaign did. Avoid seeming to be black because the Reagan Democrats might get scared – instead come across as an American first.

“sarah – Reid might have saved himself some grief if he had said Obama was a credit to his race or something similar, don’t you think? Instead he implied Americans, particularly Democrats and independents, those whose votes Obama would be seeking, were racist”

Is it somehow controversial or untrue that obama’s would have a political disadvantage from having darker skin or diction along the lines of what “furious” posted above?

“Is it somehow controversial or untrue that obama’s would have a political disadvantage from having darker skin or diction along the lines of what “furious” posted above?”

imdw – I have no idea since I’m not accustomed to perseverating about the race of political candidates and do not belong to the racist Democrat party. You are certainly in a much better position to answer these questions.

There are many Republican African-American supporters and elected or appointed officials. Neither their skin color nor their accents seem to matter to Republicans … and the last time voters objected to the way a candidate speaks, it was Democrats jeering at George W. Bush’s Texas accent in 2000 and 2004.

Reid finished his commentary by saying, “When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today.”

Boy… Bet that made the ride home next to Byrd pretty uncomfortable, considering that Reid’s fellow democrat actually filibustered that civil rights bill…

it is obvious that many more white Americans would have been uncomfortable with an African-American president who spoke in Ebonics.

That deserves a “no kidding, Sherlock” reply. Many Americans, regardless of their race, would have been uncomfortable with any candidate running for the presidency, regardless of his (or her) race, if he — and moving beyond the specifics of Ebonics — regularly didn’t conjugate his verbs, used “ain’t” frequently, said “dis” instead of “this,” favored slang terms like “chicks,” “hey, dude,” “dickhead,” etc, etc.

It was scary because his context for the quote had nothing to do with race; it was a discussion about abortion.

What’s really scary are all the people out there, most of them of liberal persuasion, who are less troubled by abortions and single, underaged girls having access to abortions without even the legal requirement of the consent of the parent/guardian than they are by, say, the little household dog or cat not being treated more lovingly and humanely.

“Boy… Bet that made the ride home next to Byrd pretty uncomfortable, considering that Reid’s fellow democrat actually filibustered that civil rights bill…”

Yeah and yet people think Reid was being partisan here…

“There are many Republican African-American supporters and elected or appointed officials. Neither their skin color nor their accents seem to matter to Republicans …”

And there are many more democratic african american supporters and elected officials…. But neither of these really addresses what I’m getting at.

“imdw – I have no idea since I’m not accustomed to perseverating about the race of political candidates and do not belong to the racist Democrat party.”

oh no need to perseverate or belong to any party at all. Just take a look at the American electorate and ask yourself how they would feel about race and furious’ stereotype. Can you imagine the way that a black candidate can look and act such that mainstream news sources would talk about his wife as his “baby mama” more often?

John Hitchcock
Keeping working that hard with denial and it will become truth to you. If Obama had come on as Mr Hip Hop he would not be president today. The same is true for white folks. You think someone like Eminem could win? No way.
And I’m not talking about State Senate seats or House seats. The public doesn’t pay much attention to the politicians who win those seats because they get very little exposure. I’m talking the big POTUS seat. In order to win – these days – you have appeal to Middle America in a large some capacity. But you know this. So does Reid. That is what he meant.
But note that Reid’s choice of wording is what has gotten him into trouble. If he simply said “White America may not be ready for a Black president so don’t make your race an issue.” Then he would have been right – and not in the trouble he is in now.
It shouldn’t be this way with Americans. And there certainly are enough progressives out there to prove that. But race is still an issue.

“Can you imagine the way that a black candidate can look and act such that mainstream news sources……”

imdw – Don’t know what you’re talking about, as usual, but did you ever imagine that main stream news sources would promote a candidate for president without digging into his qualifications for the office the way they did Obama last year?

You utterly missed the point, not that I’m at all shocked by that. Reid compared standing against Health care “reform” to standing against actual civil-rights legislation. What you fail to grasp, you thundering moron, is that in his attack against republicans – “They stand against this like they stood against civil rights” – he ignored actual facts, like the fact that Sen Byrd (the one who was a member of the KKK) is the only serving member of the senate to have been around during that legislation, and who actually filibustered it.

He attacked Republicans, suggesting that it was those “racist republicans” who also stood against the civil rights bill, when in fact it was by far and away the DEMOCRATS who stood against it.

Harry Reid’s History of Racial Posturing
Amidst
the brouhaha over Harry Reid’s comments, some people are defending Reid
by saying that he told the truth, however . . . awkwardly. See, for
example, Robert Stacy……

Reid’s comment referred to the prevalent racism that undeniably exists in America; it was a comment about the electability of Obama. And I dont think anyone is shocked to hear that news; it is obvious that many more white Americans would have been uncomfortable with an African-American president who spoke in Ebonics. What pardons Reid for me is not that what he said was true, but that it wasn’t an insult directed at Obama, nor an ignorant slip-up that bore his inner racism; it was a comment about the ways in which many Americans are racist. That’s not offensive at all, it’s just politically savvy awareness of how the citizens of this country feel.

If so, why would Senator Reid have felt the need to apologize? And it should be noted that he’s being trashed amongst some of the liberal blogs as well.

Oh you didn’t know? There was at least one mainstream media outfit that referred to Michelle Obama as Obama’s “baby mama.” You think that had to do with race? You think it might be different if Obama was acting more or less according to mainstream stereotypes?

“but did you ever imagine that main stream news sources would promote a candidate for president without digging into his qualifications for the office the way they did Obama last year?”

Thankfully we have foxnews.

“What you fail to grasp, you thundering moron, is that in his attack against republicans – “They stand against this like they stood against civil rights” – he ignored actual facts, like the fact that Sen Byrd (the one who was a member of the KKK) is the only serving member of the senate to have been around during that legislation, and who actually filibustered it”

Why are you saying he ignored those facts? Those facts are inescapable and make his attack progressive and non-partisan since they hit conservative democrats too.

“He attacked Republicans, suggesting that it was those “racist republicans” who also stood against the civil rights bill, when in fact it was by far and away the DEMOCRATS who stood against it.”

Did he say racist republicans? My recollection was that he did not mention parties.

[…] After all, Reid only apologized after he got caught in the ignorant statement when it surfaced. As Patterico’s Pontifications aptly points out, Harry Reid’s History of Racial Posturing. Harry Reid is quick to use the race […]

[…] Yes, granted, it’s great fun to kick this moron around, especially given his own race-baiting of Clarence Thomas among others. And it’s a good excuse for sites like Politico to revisit his long history of […]

James Lileks once described the overculture as:
That twitchy, cheery, idiot blare produced by a stratum of coastal types who think the rest of America truly gives a shite whether Lindsay Lohan lost her Blackbird at a party last week, and who actually k…

The silliest thing of all in this entire debacle is watching the Republicans shed their crocodile tears over Harry Reid’s “racial insensitivity”. They’re comparing it to the Democrat’s reaction to Trent Lott’s unfortunate comments back in 2002 at Strom Thurmond’s one-hundredth birthday party. Lott, referring to old Strom’s run for the White House in 1948 as a “Dixiecrat” candidate, said that America would today be a better place had the country elected him over Harry S Truman. Trent seemed to forget that the only position Thurmon ran on in ’48 was as a staunch segregationist. Lott was forced to step down as Majority Leader – not because of his moronic statement – but because he had already lost favor with the Bush White House.

For the Republicans to now claim a newly-found racial sensitivity is quite amusing to say the least. If that is the case, why the hell did they choose the dumbest black guy they could possibly find to chair the RNC? Racial sensitivity? Please.

For the Republicans to now claim a newly-found racial sensitivity is quite amusing to say the least. If that is the case, why the hell did they choose the dumbest black guy they could possibly find to chair the RNC? Racial sensitivity? Please.

Harry Reid will survive this little snafu he’s gotten into – but just barely. As the numbers stand, he is not likely to be reelected this November. He should step aside with dignity and allow his party to nominate someone with a better chance of winning on Election Day. Maybe he will do the right thing – who knows?. In spite of everything he strikes me as essentially a decent guy. He should just go back to Nevada to a dignified retirement and bask in the glow of his career as a public servant – or go to work as a lobbyist for the gambling industry – anything. He just needs to realize that his number is up.

Reid’s comments, while inarticulate, hardly constitute the fuss that is currently being made. All it really amounts to is the GOP’s Kvetch Du Jour. They have so little credibility left that it really is quite touching watching them stoop to these non-issues. It is total desperation on their part. Today it is Harry Reid’s harmless gaffe; tomorrow it will be something equally stupid and irrelevant. Just you wait and see.

SEARCH AMAZON USING THIS SEARCH BOX:
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.